The Language Of Racism

When we think about water pollution we generally judge a body of water as polluted or not.  If a polluted river meets an equally sized unpolluted river we would not then consider the water "half" polluted.  That's just not a term we would use to describe polluted water.  We simply think of it as polluted or not.  How polluted is another discussion entirely.

It would seem that race is seen the same way in our time.  The truth of this can be seen in the words we use.  This language betrays beliefs so deep that most are not even aware of them, yet, once we look more closely it becomes glaring.

We now have the first "black" president of America.  But wait.  Is he the first black president?  Actually no, he is the first half white president.  But wait.  Like water pollution, we don't speak in those terms do we?  When was the last time you heard of a river that was half clean?  No, in the mind of the racist, our president deviates from purity of white in the same way polluted water is in some degree less pure than clean water.  This is, of course, non-sense.

You see, our language reveals that we think in these terms when it comes to race. Any deviation from the pure standard of white is... well polluted... so our language would suggest.  Why else would a half-white president be referred to as black?  \

Worth noting is the fact that non-whites do not challenge whites on this obviously racist standard.  That's because they have been conditioned to accept this standard themselves. I had a non-white youth-group member in our church recently ask me, where do black people come from?  Do you see the culturally ingrained premise in that question?  An equally fair question would be, where do white people come from?  I wonder why he didn't ask that?

Marin Luther King envisioned a day when all the people of the world would be judged, not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.  I now personally think that to be a lost cause.  The very people who are supposed to be the champions of such a cause, and those who have the most to benefit from that cause,  are so fixated on skin color they are blinded to their latent racism.  The white "protectors" seek their own redemption for the wrongs of others.  They also glory in self-righteousness by making themselves out to be the saviors of those whom they obviously see as inferiors.  And we now know that there is no class of people more loyally devoted to a party they see as their saviors as those who have been made unwitting victims by that same party.

As for me, I reject that Obama is the first "black" president.  He is simply the 44th person to hold that office. Not until we all see it that way will King's dream be realized.

The FOUR "R's"?

I heard a homeschooling advocate say in an interview recently that history was more important than math and language.  The interviewer's response was the same as mine, which was that it's not one of the three "R's".  He went on to make his case but it gave me reason to wonder.

In thinking about this I found that I could make the case that deficiencies in any of these four areas would result in various barriers to a more fulfilled life.  I decided that the "R" representing "reading" probably trumped history, because if a person can read he can teach himself the other three.  But there is another reason that we have the 3 "R's" and not the 4 R's... which I now think should include  "Retrospect".   (Hey, if Arithmetic can start with "r" then why not "retrospect" for history?)

Education's primary goal, it might be said, is to provide the opportunity for a more prosperous life.  If a person, at the very least, cannot read, write and do math, his prospects of being productive are weak.  He brings only his brawn to the marketplace.  But while the impact that ignorance of history makes on well-being is of more of a secondary nature, the consequences of such ignorance when it is more wide-spread can actually be more severe than ignorance of just reading, writing and math.

The reality of this is not as readily obvious for if only one person finds no reason or purpose to think outside his own time, society can easily absorb his ignorance into itself and the society, as well as the one, will probably be no worse off.

But when masses of people become ignorant of history the impact changes drastically.  A culture that is predominately ignorant of history lives in a time bubble devoid of the stabilizing influences it offers to the present.  History provides a culture with a reference point beyond its own time by which it can judge its own direction.  If a person knows history he can observe and discern the course of events according to that history.  He need not endure the trials and tribulations of his ancestors, or have a faulty view of the nature and proclivities of himself and his fellow man.  He is able to judge with clarity those who offer security in exchange for liberty.  But without a predominance of that knowledge, a culture becomes lost in time, and consequently, ripe for the oppressor's picking.

The prospects, therefore, of prosperity. that give us reason to apply ourselves to the 3 "R's" can all become nullified by our culture's whole-scale ignorance of history.  The Despot's restraints are first loosened by that ignorance, then broken.  And while the Despot lures the hapless citizen into deeper captivity with promises of a brighter future, the need and desire for that future grows ever more desperate as the cultural state of being declines.

This is of course why we homeschool our children.  The men who lust for power know that the opportunity to achieve that unfettered power lies in the classroom of the masses with the chief focal point being history.  They know that they must detach the child from the actual past and provide for him a past that is more conducive to the garnishment from them of power.  While our children may not escape the oppression of the tyrant, with a clear understanding of history, they won't have to fall prey to his wiles, and may possibly become a voice of reason in a dark and desperate culture.

The Prudish Homosexual

Sometimes the juxtaposition of words can shine a light on things. While it might easily be said, or perhaps even expected, that a disciple of  Christ would be a prude, somehow the idea of a prudish Homosexual has the feel of an oxymoron.  While we can and should admit, given the breadth of the dispositions of mankind, that there are instances of devoted and monogamous homosexual relationships, we also must realize that even in such cases the idea of a prudish homosexual falls short. ⁽¹⁾ There is a reason for this.  To discover that reason let's take a look at the definition of the word "Prude":

The online dictionary defines it this way:

"One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous. "

Considering this definition one word pops out at us right away: righteous.  This word is probably a good reason why the word prude is not considered to be a complement.   Le'ts take a closer look at that word, righteous as well to see why.  Merrian Webster defines it as "acting in accord with divine or moral law".

So we can see now why there is no such thing as a prudish homosexual.  The term prudish homosexual introduces cognitive dissonance.  Cognitive dissonance is like saying that it is forbidden to forbid, or, there is no truth... and that's the truth.  These statements are inconsistent with logic. In the same way, accusing a person who rejects the existence of absolute moral law of being excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous, is also inconsistent with logic.

Interestingly enough, the online dictionary goes on to say this:

"Being called a prude is rarely considered a compliment, but if we dig into the history of the word prude, we find that it has a noble past."

This "noble past" points to a time when it was generally accepted that there was such a thing as righteousness.  While the Christian perspective is that there are none righteous, no not one, this does not wipe away the existence of righteousness from which mankind falls short.  It remains that being a disciple of Christ, and thus being transformed into his righteous image, and being sanctified, ought to be the out-workings of that relationship.  The word prude, therefore, while causing us to be an object of contempt to the world, ought to give us reason for thankfulness in our hearts to God who has seen fit to transform us by the renewing our minds.
_________________

Note 1:  From the Christian perspective there is no such thing as a Homosexual Christian no more than there is such a thing as an adulterous Christian. Christians find their identity in Christ, not whatever garden variety of sin that happens to be "besetting" them.  "Homosexual Christian" does not describe, therefore, a Christian who struggles with same-sex attractions.  Such a Christian could easily be considered prudish, and given the shame all mankind inherently feels about his sinful behavior, Christians, above all, would not be desirous of waving as a banner, or claiming as an identity, their shame.